BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

"That one is certain to raise some controversy over what a holotype is ..."
The holotpe is constituted solely by:
a) Feather samples…(in a tissue collection of a museum)
b) For purposes of Article 74.1.4 …the individual depicted in Figure 1 and the Cover of this edition…

I am confused since there is no Article 74.1.4 but I imagine they mean :
73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation.

That one is certain to raise some controversy over what a holotype is ...

Indeed... the thought of not collecting a holotype specimen was very irritating, but then I skimmed the paper and I realized that wasn't the controversy:

Quote:

There are two specimens of G. fenwickorum that were collected without the necessary permit within the Colibrí del Sol Bird Reserve by Diego
Carantón-Ayala. There is an on-going investigation by the regional environmental authority as to the incident. These specimens are not designated as type material given the circumstances in which they were collected and the possibility that they could be confiscated by the authorities or decommissioned from the relevant collection. Although we considered Donegan (2008b)’s recommendation that ‘If a specimen based on a dead organism exists, then it is better to use it for a type specimen, whatever the circumstances in which it was procured’, we have decided against such an approach in this instance and instead designated a different holotype for which the relevant permit was available.

The spanish-language editorial (http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf/Edito...Con_Col_13.pdf) in that issue appears to describe the circumstances of the unpermitted collection... my spanish is too incomplete to get a full grasp of the situation - can anyone provide a simple english summary?

My Spanish is good enough to understand it, but too bad to be sure to give a translation that doesn't give false information.
But if I read it correctly, the collector did not mention the new antpitta in his monthly reports, instead trying to write an article independent of his employer... He did not obtain permission for collecting either (the contract mentions that only "accidental deaths" during ringing work should be collected).

Given that the etymology makes clear that the name is to honor the Fenwick family, with both Mr. & Mrs. Fenwick being mentioned, shouldn't the proper English name be Fenwicks' Antpitta rather than Fenwick's Antpitta?

My Spanish is good enough to understand it, but too bad to be sure to give a translation that doesn't give false information.
But if I read it correctly, the collector did not mention the new antpitta in his monthly reports, instead trying to write an article independent of his employer... He did not obtain permission for collecting either (the contract mentions that only "accidental deaths" during ringing work should be collected).

All correct

Fundación Pro Aves contracted a biologist (Diego Andrés Carantón) for the management and also for bird research on a new natural reserve. The fundación had just bought the land for preservation, a territory with many rarely seen birds and with potential for finding new/undescribed bird species. One of the biologist duties was to monitor the avifauna with mist nets, take pics of all trapped species and prepare, label and send any accidental deaths to the fundación (for museums, ornithological collections etc). All his findings had to be reported to the fundación, the contractor.
The fundación says that the biologist trapped 2 specimens of the new antpitta, killed them and decided to keep the information secret to the fundación, clearly violating the contract. Apparently the biologist had decided to describe the new species with people from outside the fundación, and sent an article to the gringo magazine Condor. The article was rejected when the magazine discovered the problems between the fundación and the biologist regarding the collection of the two birds, etc.
Biologists from the fundación finally described the species in Conservación Colombiana magazine, keeping Mr Carantón outside the credits as a reward for his methods and disloyalty.
That's it more or less...
Cheers,
Eduardo

__________________
"You must not know too much, or be too precise or scientific about birds and trees and flowers. A certain free margin...helps your enjoyment of these things."
Walt Whitman

Last edited by Motmot : Sunday 23rd May 2010 at 15:01.
Reason: correct a magazine name

Or is it? If all that's true, and I've got no reason to doubt the veracity of the editorial, does that legitimise a form of biopiracy? Diego C was the discoverer of the bird. If he breached his contract, sacking him is / was the appropriate course of action (or withholding pay).

It seems that the discoverer intended to document his discovery properly, originally in Condor and following rejection there apparently in Ornitologia Colombia (only he's been gazumped now, so his name, whatever it is, will be born in synonymy, if the paper does indeed eventually see the light of day).

So why the ethics statement on pp. 14-15 of the paper itself, which is partly at odds with the information presented within the editorial? In any case, the affair is in stark contrast to other cases involving ProAves researchers, who have (quite rightly) taken far longer than 19 months to describe new taxa. In fact, as anyone who has submitted a paper to a serious ornithological journal knows, a period of 18-24 months is pretty much the minimum needed from writing to publication.

ProAves are continuing to do absolutely fantastic work in Colombia, but I think Diego C deserves the chance to tell his side of this story.

Given that the etymology makes clear that the name is to honor the Fenwick family, with both Mr. & Mrs. Fenwick being mentioned, shouldn't the proper English name be Fenwicks' Antpitta rather than Fenwick's Antpitta?

The authors of the paper state "The epithet honors the Fenwick family; George, Rita, Cyrus, Sarah and Rachael Fenwick of The Plains, Virginia, USA."

As such the bird is named for all of the immediate members of the Fenwick family; therefore the bird is the family Fenwick's Antpitta. If it was just Mr & Mrs, then Fenwicks' or Fenwicks's would indeed be correct.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear Guy. The 'all correct' only implies that xenos translation was good. I only read the fundación paper and wrote a summary. I know nothing about Proaves or Mr Carantón, have no opinion on this affair.
Best,
Eduardo

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMK

Or is it? If all that's true, and I've got no reason to doubt the veracity of the editorial, does that legitimise a form of biopiracy? Diego C was the discoverer of the bird. If he breached his contract, sacking him is / was the appropriate course of action (or withholding pay).

It seems that the discoverer intended to document his discovery properly, originally in Condor and following rejection there apparently in Ornitologia Colombia (only he's been gazumped now, so his name, whatever it is, will be born in synonymy, if the paper does indeed eventually see the light of day).

So why the ethics statement on pp. 14-15 of the paper itself, which is partly at odds with the information presented within the editorial? In any case, the affair is in stark contrast to other cases involving ProAves researchers, who have (quite rightly) taken far longer than 19 months to describe new taxa. In fact, as anyone who has submitted a paper to a serious ornithological journal knows, a period of 18-24 months is pretty much the minimum needed from writing to publication.

ProAves are continuing to do absolutely fantastic work in Colombia, but I think Diego C deserves the chance to tell his side of this story.

__________________
"You must not know too much, or be too precise or scientific about birds and trees and flowers. A certain free margin...helps your enjoyment of these things."
Walt Whitman

Fundación Pro Aves contracted a biologist (Diego Andrés Carantón) for the management and also for bird research on a new natural reserve. The fundación had just bought the land for preservation, a territory with many rarely seen birds and with potential for finding new/undescribed bird species. One of the biologist duties was to monitor the avifauna with mist nets, take pics of all trapped species and prepare, label and send any accidental deaths to the fundación (for museums, ornithological collections etc). All his findings had to be reported to the fundación, the contractor.
The fundación says that the biologist trapped 2 specimens of the new antpitta, killed them and decided to keep the information secret to the fundación, clearly violating the contract. Apparently the biologist had decided to describe the new species with people from outside the fundación, and sent an article to the gringo magazine Condor. The article was rejected when the magazine discovered the problems between the fundación and the biologist regarding the collection of the two birds, etc.
Biologists from the fundación finally described the species in Conservación Colombiana magazine, keeping Mr Carantón outside the credits as a reward for his methods and disloyalty.

Thanks Eduardo for clearing that up. What a crazy situation.

It does seem a bit disingenuous for ABC to trumpet this as a new species described without collecting a specimen when specimens were collected and are used in the species description.

We saw the new Antpitta a couple of months ago; it was very exciting! Urrao is the closest town to the preserve, and is quite charming, so I'm leaning towards the name "Urrao Antpitta" ... but does anybody know what relation to the Antpitta the Fenwick family has?

We saw the new Antpitta a couple of months ago; it was very exciting! Urrao is the closest town to the preserve, and is quite charming, so I'm leaning towards the name "Urrao Antpitta" ... but does anybody know what relation to the Antpitta the Fenwick family has?

I suspect that the Fenwicks will consider their honouring to be something of a poisoned chalice. I wonder which vernacular name will prevail...?

Richard

"unfortunately" but fully respecting the ICZN I would say that Fenwick's Antpitta will be officially kept (at least for the next days); but for sure URRAO ANTPITTA is a real name, honoring real hardcore working/researching people and an amazingly beautiful area in the W Andes of Colombia ... most people thinking and reasoning right and ethically about this in the bird-community people should use Urrao Antpitta.

Hi All,
Diego has posted the Caranton side of the story, Proaves is in the process of writing an article defending their side of the controversy. I'll post a link when it becomes available.
Cheers,
Avery Bartels,
Ecoturs Guide

Hi All,
Diego has posted the Caranton side of the story, Proaves is in the process of writing an article defending their side of the controversy. I'll post a link when it becomes available.
Cheers,
Avery Bartels,
Ecoturs Guide

Hey Avery,
nice to hear from you dude, did you finally went for superb birding at the lower areas in Carmen de Atrato?... Choco Vireo every day ;-) ?

I must say here that I DID posted the "Caranton" side of the story as Avery mentions; that is right of course, but I think it is more than worth to mention that this "Caranton" side of the story is the one that a 100% (ok, maybe not a 100 but something around 90-something % because I guess that still some people in Colombia worship and approve rather questionable practices) of the Colombian local researchers and birders support and feel is the appropriate and ethical one!... that Editorial Note published by Ornitologia Colombiana editors is just simply THE VOICE of the Colombian people in the ornithological community, no more than that. What I think is pretty clear, strong and noticeably about OUR posture, as a local researching/birding community, as a whole, as a country...

It will be interesting reading the new proaves text when available to see what they come with this time; and comical of course! if it is going to be same stile than the previous one they did about this topic (PAGE 4 in http://www.proaves.org/IMG/pdf/Grall...Con_Col_13.pdf, a rather kind of old-aunt told gossip... a shame it was only in Spanish so not everyone could have enjoyed it!) - I would also hope that this new text should not be only an unknown author one signed by a foundation/association/company/whatever, but something more real, written by real people (= the authors that published Grallaria fenwickorum)

yes Richard, as you said in your original post: "The multiple description scenario just gets ever more bizarre".... bizarre but clearer for several people: they are not allowing freedom of thinking and public/scientific scrutiny... they are just interested in donors, money, names, and having those heavy weight $$$ guys happy!